Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/10/11 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 11, 2006 Chairman Stewart called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Cristine McPhail, Lou Munoz, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: James Troyer, Planning Director; Kevin Ennis, City Attorney; Tabe van der Zwaag, Assistant Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Maria Perez, Associate Engineer; Barbara Tuncay, Planning Department Secretary; Rebecca Coleman, Office Specialist II. * * * * * ANNOUNCEMENTS None * * * * * APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent) to approve the minutes of the August 29, 2006 Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1, (Macias absent) to approve the minutes of September 27, 2006. « « « « « PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD PHASE III MEDIANS AND STREET WIDENING FROM GROVE AVENUE TO VINEYARD AVENUE - The City of Rancho Cucamonga is proposing to widen Foothill Boulevard to 6 lanes and install a raised median, between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. The proposed action also includes replacement of the existing steel railroad bridge with concrete through girder pedestrian bridge. In addition to the street widening the public elements of the Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan (VIP) will be implemented with the project as well. Decorative sidewalk, decorative street lights, an entry arch, decorative treatments to existing and new traffic signal poles, as well as decorative pavement treatments per the VIP will be installed as a part of this project. The project area includes Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. The proposed project will increase the number of lanes along Foothill Boulevard which will • • improve the traffic service level of the major divided street. Construction duration is expected to last two years and will be initiated in 2007. Funding for this project is being provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The purpose and need of this project is to improve the circulation and level of service of traffic on Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. Small areas of parkway will be acquired from 22 individual parties to accommodate the street widening but the acquisition is not expected to affect any private structures. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for consideration. CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 13, 2006. Maria Perez, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Fletcher asked where exactly the arch will be located. Ms. Perez explained that the arch will be•located 100 feet from the Grove Avenue and Foothill Boulevard intersection. Chairman Stewart asked for confirmation that this is a two year project. • Ms. Perez replied that the project is scheduled to start July of 2007 and be completed by July of 2009. Chairman Stewart noted that the public hearing remained open from the September 13, 2006 meeting. Jim Moffat, 8111 Foothill Boulevard, owner of the Red Hill Cafe, stated that if the City widens the street they will have to take seven or 8 parking spots which are located in front of his building and will most likely put him out of business. He stated that he felt Route 66 didn't have to be changed at that corner but agreed that further down by the railroad tracks would benefit from change. Mr. Moffat asked the Commission how he would be compensated should he be put out of business. Bill Hanlon, 8651 Via Maraca, introduced himself as being a Red Hill resident for 22 years and stated that this project would benefit 1.5 miles of road but will not benefit the City of Rancho Cucamonga at all. He stated that traffic jams will occur with this project because of having six lanes in one area and only four lanes in other areas. He stated that the rubberized roads will not help anyone but the proposed condos going into that site that were not wanted in the first place except for a few people in public office. He stated that the City cannot expand 120 feet without hurting someone in the process. Mr. Hanlon added that he has been a patron of the Red Hill Café for 22 years and is going to push for that establishment to be deemed an historical site. Mr. Hanlon added that he was concerned about the fact that Foothill Boulevard would become a six lane road and hoped that there would be a walkway because he felt that someone was going to get hurt trying to cross it. He added that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is a suburb and should not have stop lights every 50 feet. William E. Dennis, Attorney for the owner's of the Red Hill service station, stated that the owners have worked hard and have made a lot of improvements on their business and it is now a very nice entrance into the city and wondered if the Commission had any idea as to what this project will do to that business should it be approved. He added that the only customers who will see the service station will be the ones coming from the west because the customers coming from the east will not see the station until they get right up on it. He explained that the customers coming from the west who want to use the service station will have to pass up the station and make a u-turn and go back the other way, and then when they leave the service station and want to go east, they are going to have to make a u-turn Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 11, 2006 again to go back the other way, which will cause inconvenience to customers resulting in them taking their business elsewhere, which will put his client out of business. Mr. Dennis explained that what he and his client would like to see is the left hand turning lane be moved down further to allow people to pull into the service station without having to pass it up and make a u-turn and to also lengthen the driveway and open it more so that trucks and tankers can get into the station. Mr. Dennis asked the Commission to give careful consideration to the small business owner in this situation and added that he felt these are the problems the City is creating. He added that he feels that the City would be able to fix them so that his client would not be put out of business. Mr. Brown, 7624 Alta Questa Drive, stated that he has been a Red Hill resident for 42 years and that traffic accidents have been getting increasingly worse and is in favor of a stop light at Red Hill Country Club Drive, but that one thing should be remembered and that is that it is 1.2 miles from Grove Avenue to Osh Plaza and there will be seven stop lights when this project is finished. He added that if the City puts an arch there, maybe it should say "Welcome to Rancho Cucamonga, the City of stop lights," and maybe that will help everyone understand that these stop lights mean something. He added that drivers going east on Foothill Boulevard are likely to go north up over Red Hill Country Club Drive and will increase the traffic congestion horribly. He stated that he has talked with many Sheriffs who have said that many of the tickets that are written are to people who live elsewhere, but go up through Red Hill to eliminate stop lights, which makes a bad situation for Red Hill Country Club Drive. He added that it also wouldn't do any good to add more stop signs up there because people run the ones that are there already. Mr. Brown added that what they do need is more patrol up there from the Sheriffs department. Mr. Brown finished his statements by saying that if the City is going to make improvements; they need to make them for the better, not the worse. Barbara Larrabe, 86651 Foothill Boulevard, stated that she is a resident at the mobile home park just below Foothill Boulevard and that their main concern is their safety when trying to pull in and out of traffic onto Foothill Boulevard. Patricia Bamberger, 7881 Lita Corte, stated that she has lived in the City for 35 years and had attended the meetings when the 209 condo units were originally planned and were being built, and had expressed to the Commission at that time that the traffic was going to be horrendous. She added that she now feels that with the addition of more lanes and traffic lights, she can just imagine how many more people will drive up through Red Hill to eliminate those lights which will result in the problem getting worse. She stated that she was only attending this meeting so that her testimony will be on record because the last time she approached the Commission, she was told she was three years too late, so this time she wasn't going to wait another three years before she addressed this project. She stated that she has nothing against the beautification of Foothill Boulevard, but felt for the small business owners as well, and hoped the Commission would be able to find resolutions to all of their problems, but stated that the Commission had better solve their problems on the hill with the traffic. Kathie Shwmanski, 7779 Buena Vista, stated that she has lived in the City for seven years and her parents have lived there for over 30 years. She stated that she is concerned about the additional signal planned with this project, as well as the realignment of Red Hill Country Club Drive. She asserted that their streets are very narrow and do not have any sidewalks or street lights, but they like it that way. She added that when that area was planned, it was planned as a rural residential area, and that's how they like it, want it to stay, and why they moved there in the first place. She stressed that she is now afraid this project will destroy it and hopes the Commission will take this into consideration. Planning Commission Minutes -3- • October 11, 2006 Jack Lieberman, 8508 Calle Carabe, stated that he is the owner of three condos in Red Hill and has noticed that many people are taking short cuts in the area and is afraid that its going to get worse and become somewhat of a raceway. He stated that he supports the City doing improvements in the Bear Gulch area. Mike Fournier, 8393 Foothill Boulevard, stated that he works by the Bear Gulch area and that there are many accidents in that area and feels that street widening is necessary and will help beautify the area and hopes it will slow people down a bit. He stated that he is personally going to lose ten parking spaces in his business area but is all for it if it's going to improve the traffic situation there. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing and asked staff to address the concerns made by the residents. Maria Perez stated that the parking stalls that were indicated by the Red Hill Café owner are in the City right-of-way which means the City is going to actually use its own right-of-way at this point. Chairman Stewart asked for confirmation that the parking stalls at Red Hill Café are owned by the City. Ms. Perez stated that Red Hill Café is using City right-of-way as parking and that staff is willing to work with them to re-stripe the parking lot to maximize the remaining area outside of the public right-of-way. Ms. Perez added that it is the law that they attempt to put in handicapped access ramps in that area, which Ms. Perez stated that they are going to do. She added that they will work with the owner to minimize the impact by possibly using a modified Cal-Trans standard rather than the City standard. She stated that they are trying to be sensitive to the existing businesses and work with them to minimize impact, but that there are going to be some impacts and in most cases they are using existing City right-of-way that people are parking in. She explained that another example was Vince's Spaghetti where people are parking in the City's right-of-way and they are going to implement the plan in that area but will work with them and re-stripe and attempt to make things good for them. Chairman Stewart asked if dialogue had been opened yet with the businesses along that section of the proposed project. Ms. Perez answered that they have not contacted the businesses yet because they have to start the environmental process first and get approval and then start the right-of-way process with all the individual owners. Ms. Perez added that they have had dialogue with anyone who has approached them, including the owner of the Red Hill Café, the Red Hill service station, and the Magic Lamp Inn, and have spent a lot of time with them discussing options. Chairman Stewart asked that the concern of seven traffic lights be addressed. Ms. Perez explained that the City is adding the Red Hill intersection to include a traffic signal but stated that it would be unsafe to add that intersection and make it a median break without signalizing it. She noted that as far as safety issues, they would have to have the traffic Engineer explain things in that regard. Ms. Perez added that the other signals included in the seven mentioned in the project are already in existence. Chairman Stewart asked Ms. Perez to address the concerns of the residents of the mobile home park. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 11, 2006 Ms. Perez replied that currently the mobile park residents only have an exit and entrance through a left hand turn lane, but that will change and they will now have entry and exit with a right turn only, which means they will have to go down the street a ways and make a u- turn, which may be out of the way for them but it is signalized and the traffic will stop east and west allowing them to make their u-turn, and traffic wise will be more safe than currently attempting to negotiate into oncoming traffic. Chairman Stewart asked the Commission if there were anymore questions. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked when the City has studies or review of potential historical landmark sites, if the Red Hill Café is ever considered. Ms. Perez answered that part of the process included a historic cultural review of all the different buildings in the area and one of the few buildings in the area that was determined to be of historic value was the Klusman house as well as the bridge, and in their staff report as well as in the Resolution it indicated at what point the Historic Preservation Commission was approached with that cultural review which indicated what structures were of merit and the Red Hill Café was not determined in the study to be of merit. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked for confirmation that the parking spaces are in the City's right- of-way. Ms. Perez replied that the City is going to use their right-of-way but that engineering is going to make every effort to minimize what they need to take for the handicap access ramp. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked that the concern mentioned for the pedestrian crossing access for the expanded bridge to be addressed. Ms. Perez stated that the bridge is a pedestrian bridge, but there is not access to Foothill at that point at the bridge, but access would be either at Grove or Vineyard Avenue. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked whether or not there will be bus access or cutouts near the mobile home park. Ms. Perez stated she was unsure if there was bus access or a bus cut-out in front of the mobile home park but that they will be replacing one down by San Bernardino Road. Chairman Stewart asked Ms. Perez to explain the process and time lines so that everyone will understand and know what to expect in the future. Ms. Perez stated that if they receive environmental approval, the City can then move forward and begin appraising the areas that they need for right-of-way, and then offers would be made to all the various owners, and letters would be sent out to the owners relative to the improvements and impacts. She reported that the owners who will not be impacted by the right-of-way losses, will be asked if they have any concerns or issues with this project and they will be welcomed into City Hall to review the plans. Chairman Stewart asked if at that point, the Engineering Department would try to make - some mitigation's if they can, to help them with parking spaces or anything relative to their business. Ms. Perez stated that they have to work with all business owners individually to accommodate each site. Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 11, 2006 Chairman Stewart asked if they were in discussion with the service station in regard to the left hand turn issue. Ms. Perez replied yes they were in discussion with them in regard to the median break as well as the driveway issue, but unless she has direction to change any of the applicable plans, they cannot make a median break there. She added that the median break is at the new location of Red Hill per the approved plans. Ms. Perez added that it would be unusual to have a median break so close to Grove Avenue. Commissioner McPhail asked for help from the Assistant City Attorney, Kevin Ennis, to help everyone understand what the Commission is actually approving tonight. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the principle action that the Commission is to take at this point is to determine if the project is in conformance with the General Plan and that in the Commission's opinion, if that document sufficiently analyzes and mitigates the impacts of the proposed project. Commissioner McPhail asked for confirmation that the Commission is not there to approve or disapprove a set of working drawings. Mr. Ennis replied that that was correct and that the Commission is not authorizing the budgetary money for it. He stated that it's the narrow issue of consistency and that this was a process and project that is one that has taken multiple stages. He added that first there was originally the General Plan and then the Specific Plan was adopted and then the Visual Improvement Plan and this is yet another step in that process. Chairman Stewart added that there are many more steps after the Commission determination of conformance to the General Plan. I Mr. Ennis added that there will be additional steps before the construction can occur through all the individual work with all the property owners and businesses affected to ensure that all of those issues get resolved, and accommodations are made, as well as solutions and arrangements with each property owner over the potential acquisition of some of the strips of property. He added that there will be a lot of contact between the City and all of the property owners and businesses from here on out. Chairman Stewart stated that she thinks it's important that the public understand what the action is going to be that evening, which is conformance of the General Plan and the concern of the Environmental Assessment as explained by the City's attorney. She added that in the staff report there are many future steps as staff has explained on time lines and future calendars as to what is going to happen with this project and that this is not the approval of anything other than a conformance issue. Commissioner McPhail stated that the document is in conformance with the General Plan and the information provided in the Negative Declaration is sufficient to what they need it to be and therefore she would move that the Commission accept them. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he had heard concern tonight from the public, but did not hear a lot of objection to this project and felt there should always be some concern about what the City is planning. He added that his affiliation with the Chamber of Commerce and the businesses over the years have always heard one complaint over and over again, which is when will the City do something about the west side of Rancho Cucamonga and that all of the new growth and development seems to be on the east side with Victoria Gardens. He stated that both residents and businesses on the west side have Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 11, 2006 had the feeling for years that they have been neglected. He went on to say that this type of project has been in the plans for a long, long time and he was quite impressed when he saw the original Visual Improvement Plan and the ideas that went into it. He mentioned that he thought that the plans were quite exciting as far as the archway and the entry into our City and the Route 66 medians, as well as the widening of the road and the General beautification of Foothill Boulevard and that its not just going to be from Grove Avenue to Vineyard Avenue when they are done, that its going to be from the west side to the east side of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He added that he thinks this is long over due and will raise the image of the west side and feels it will be beneficial to the property owners and the business owners in that side of town and that is a good start. He added that whenever the City puts medians in, there are always businesses or residences that are concerned about accesses there but it seems to work out. He added that when the older smaller businesses see new development come in with this Visual Improvement Plan and beautification of the streets you are going to see new development on the west side and adjacent property owners will feel compelled to improve their properties and its going to increase the value of everything. He added that he think this ultimately will be good in the end for the west side of the City. Commissioner Munoz stated that a couple of months ago he heard scores of Red Hill residents tell the City how new development in the area is going to choke Foothill Boulevard and they had asked when the City was going to do something about moving the traffic along and respond to the growth that is happening to the City. He stated that he hasn't heard enough of that this evening and he was wondering where some of those people were. He said he did hear them a couple of months back and he thinks this is the City's response to this issue and he feels that it's a good response. He stated that if we look at the growth that's going to happen 'here in the City over the next ten years and we don't respond to congestion on Foothill Boulevard now, we are going to have a problem that we won't be able to respond to in the future. He added that he thought that this addresses the scores of complaints by the Red Hill residents. Commissioner Stewart reiterated that this is the first step of a fairly long process and the City does have traffic accidents by the bridge and you might find that this is going to help with this. She asked staff as they work through the process to work with the Sheriffs Department, there are things that can be done such as patrolling and/or things along that line, but wanted them done as a joint effort. Commissioner Fletcher added that the City has always tried to create a boundary of arriving into the City and they want people to realize that when they hit the boundaries of Rancho Cucamonga they want it to be better than what is across the street. He added that they want visitors who enter the City to have the feeling that they know they are in Rancho Cucamonga and that he thinks the Visual Improvement Plan in this part of the City is going to help with that. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to find the project in conformance with the General Plan and adopted the Environmental Assessment of the Foothill Boulevard Phase III Medians and Street Widening, from Grove Avenue to Vineyard through the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: ABSENT: MACIAS NONE , - carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 11, 2006 B. CONSIDERATION.OF APPEAL OF A PLANNING DIRECTOR DECISION TO DENY MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00647 ROYAL . STREET - COMMUNICATIONS - A request to co-locate a wireless communication facility on Si existing monopole wireless facility at 9272 Hyssop Drive - APN: 0229-283-12 Tabe van der Zwaag, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. . Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. John Beke, 8578 Utica Avenue, introduced himself as the applicant and stated that he is no , stranger to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and has processed several sites within,the City limits in the ten plus years that he has been doing this challenging work and that he knows that cities look down on his business even worse than strip clubs or liquor stores. He added that Retro PCS is a new cell phone company with over two- million customers and felt that his business is going to turn the Southern California wireless business upside down with a plan that allows unlimited calls for fewer than forty dollars per month, prepaid. He added that just after. two years of servicing Miami, they were the number two company there. He explained that the Metro PCS site development model is based on co-location and that they launched their Atlanta market with over four hundred sites and it was done one hundred percent co-locating on existing sites. He went on by saying that the following statements he would be making, must be made on record, since the minutes of the meeting are all that would be allowed as evidence should this end up across the driveway at Superior Court. He added that before the hearing gets adversarial, he asked that the Commission hear his arguments and not mistake his words for true anger as he was merely being passionate and felt that this is a David versus Goliath situation. He pointed out that METRO PCS has fifteen more sites they are processing in the City and this disagreement is not meant to drive a wedge between them and the City and that it's kind of a poor introduction to Metro PCS that they meet that way. He added that they are going to be doing business in the City for many years to come and they must get along, but felt that mistakes were made from the beginning. He explained that when he approached the counter in the Planning Department, he told them what he was proposing and was handed a Minor Development Review application which was received, processed and denied; which now gives him the chance to appeal any action of the Planning Director to the Planning Commission per City Code. He stated that the way staff tried to get him to change his pole to a pine tree is by claiming that the existing pole is legal non-conforming. He went on to say that even though he is not an attorney, even he can read Section 17.26, the wireless code, and see nothing that prohibits a cell phone company from applying for or the City to disallow regular poles from being erected. He added that lacking a strict prohibition of regular poles leads the reader to assume a regular pole is technically still allowed and therefore uses that are still allowed under current code cannot be deemed legal non-conforming in a willy-nilly convenient to you kind of way. Also, he stated that he finds no firm requirement for co-locations on such regular poles to cause replacement of old style poles with stealth ones, rather what Code Section 17.26.03.A1 says that Stealth facilities are preferred, not shall or must be stealth. Which he said was lacking a codified directive to replace the pole and so the reader can safely assume that the co-location upon such poles is allowable. Further he added that Code Section 17.26.03.04 gives his site acquisition personnel that were out there looking for a site strict guidance using the words "shall" be located in the following order preference; First being co-located on other major wireless communication facility and secondly on existing structures, such as communication towers. He added that as he read the Code, he thought he was on the right track in doing what the City wanted as prescribed by the Code. He added that the thing that is legal non- conforming here tonight was the City's Code. He explained that he felt what was happening is the City says one thing through the Code but really wants something else. He remarked that the City says co-locate and to go on existing poles, but you want a pine. He stated that the Planning Director wants him to replace the existing pole with a pine. He commented that he Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 11, 2006 wants a lot of things; a Porsche for Christmas comes to mind. He noted that the truth is the City's actions are governed by the code; the code is not properly worded to deliver the results that the City seeks. He commented that if the site were near a residential area, he would not •I flinch at the City's request to swap the pole out for a pine, but at this location, the City's request is not appropriate and he implored for common sense and sensibility to prevail with this land use decision. He explained that his heavily modified proposal now asks to flush mount the antennas to the pole in the flushest possible manner, and they have offered to not just paint to match their antennas, but to repaint the entire pole, perhaps not bright white as currently colored, but perhaps tan or taupe or something that blends in with the landscaping. He asserted that this would accomplish the goals of the General Plan much better than a ninety foot tall fake pine tree which would accomplish the opposite of our proposal by adding so much more bulk and mass to the skyline. He explained that another alternative would be to cover the antennas with a shroud • similar to the antenna facilities in Heritage Park, but he felt that treatment adds too much bulk as well. Mr. Beke asked the Commission to use common sense and for the Planning Commission to reverse the Planning Director's denial of this minimal impact project. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing and opened for questions. Commissioner Fletcher asked for advisement from the Assistant City Attorney, Kevin Ennis. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the principal issue here is that the pole required a Conditional Use Permit to be erected because it exceeded the height requirement in the zone and that a CUP was granted. He explained that the proposed addition of antenna panels will expand and intensify that use further requiring the modification of the CUP. He noted that the triggering point for the modification of the CUP permits the City to then consider the impacts of that intensification as well as whether or not that modification is consistent with the General Plan and the zoning ordinance. He commented that staff is indicating that this non-stealth pole is not consistent with the goals of the General Plan and so are indicating that this would not be an appropriate modification to that CUP and so whether or not this is a legal or not a legal non- conforming use the principle issue as he saw it, it is that the City is wanting to modify a CUP that's going to intensify the use when that is triggered and it will require a determination of consistency with the General Plan and staff is saying its not consistent and so on that basis he thought that the staffs recommendation was appropriate. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if co-locating is all part of Mr. Beke's business plan and if they do this for economic reasons because it's cheaper than putting up their own poles. Mr. Beke replied that is true, but also that it is strongly encouraged with words like "shall" in the City's zoning code, and commented that "shall" is a requirement, not a permissive word like how stealth is preferred. Vice Chairman Fletcher asserted that Mr. Beke was not helping his situation with his tone of language or attitude and that he didn't have anymore questions for him and that Mr. Beke could sit down unless someone else had further questions for him. Vice Chairman Fletcher stated that he thinks the staff report made it quite clear that the Development Code is written in this manner so that the City can get rid of these kinds of poles and not proliferate them. He noted that this is an opportunity, if you are going to co-exist, to change the pole. Chairman Stewart stated that she would have to concur with Vice Chairman Fletcher. Commissioner McPhail stated that she agrees with Vice Chairman Fletcher and stated that its very clear that the City has the opportunity to improve and this is the City of Rancho Cucamonga and they have a certain standard that was set and this pole doesn't meet the City's Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 11, 2006 • standard and we can amend that, so she was in favor'of what staff has indicated was the correct direction and would support it and would move the appropriate approval. - Mr. Ennis stated that what the Commission's action would be is to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Director's decision and to do so by the adoption of Resolution 06-87. Chairman Stewart added that this was the City's attempt to modify a CUP that was non- conforming and no different than any other CUP and if something is not going correctly with a. business or any other avenue it's their attempt to bring it back and get it modified. She commented to the applicant that she feels with fifteen sites, and if he wants to do that much business in the City, he is very welcome, but she stated that he needs to figure out how to do that and work jointly with everyone instead of some of the behavior that she witnessed on display tonight. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to deny the appeal of the applicant and uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny Minor Development Review DRC2006-00647. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00772 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to the definition of Accessory Structure in Section 17.02.140, amendment to 17.08.060.A. Accessory Structures and Additions, and amendment to 17.08.060.C. Projections into Yards. This action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing and asked if there were any comments and or questions; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. • Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00772 to the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried D. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00690 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to Section 17.08.030.E.2.b. Location of Animals. This action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 11, 2006 Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if the rear yard set back of five feet from the property line refers to the existing property line. Mr. Coleman replied that is correct. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing and asked if there were any comments and/or questions; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Fletcher stated that the lots are usually back to back and homes would be set apart almost 400 feet. He asked why then if the shed is at the back of a 200-foot deep lot, why you couldn't put it up to the fence instead of the 5-foot set back. Mr. Coleman replied that the 5-foot set back stems from the City's agricultural heritage and the City is a rural and equestrian community, so with horse keeping and animals comes the need to have sheds or barns and structures like that. He said the feeling is that it is appropriate to allow accessory structures within 5 feet of a rear or side property line. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked for clarification of the purpose of the amendment and if it Was for enforcement purposes and that it didn't mean that the City was going to send Code Enforcement out there looking for violations. Mr. Coleman stated that that is correct and that the City enforces by complaint and stated that in fact most of the amendments are creating more flexibility for the property owners as to what they can do. Vice Chairman Fletcher stated that is does add clarification and moved approval. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00690 to the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS None COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Munoz asked staff for information or a presentation on the Fire Department's new Fire Code regulations for high rise structures. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that Commissioner Munoz was referring to the High Rise Ordinance that the City has enacted. James Troyer, Planning Director, remarked that staff would give the Commission the information they were requesting in regard to the High Rise Ordinance. Commissioner McPhail stated that she wanted to thank Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, for all of his clarifications that are always appreciated. Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 11, 2006 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, and carried 4-0-1, (Macias absent) to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 7,1)1144-) Alt James R. Troyer, Al P Secretary Approved: November 8, 2006 1 Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 11, 2006